STANLEY J. HARTE, INDIVIDUALLY, PETITIONER,
v.
PALM BEACH BILTMORE CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION, INC., A FLORIDA NOT-FOR-PROFIT CORPORATION, RESPONDENT
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
This is a petition for common law certiorari challenging a trial court's denial of summary judgment on one count in a construction defects action. The appellate court denied the petition on jurisdictional grounds, holding that a defendant cannot invoke certiorari to review the denial of summary judgment on a single count when adequate appellate remedy exists after final judgment.
A defendant cannot obtain common law certiorari review of the denial of a motion for summary judgment on a single count absent a demonstration of both a departure from the essential requirements of law and lack of an adequate remedy by appeal after final judgment. The order denying summary judgment is not a permitted interlocutory appeal and is not proper matter for certiorari.
[1] Common law certiorari is not available to review the denial of a motion for summary judgment when an adequate remedy by appeal exists after final judgment.
[2] To obtain common law certiorari, a petitioner must demonstrate both a departure from the essential requirements of law and the lack of an adequate remedy by appeal.
Previewing 2 of 5 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“A district court may refuse to grant a petition for common law certiorari even though there may have been a departure from the essential requirements of law.”
Establishes that certiorari may be denied on jurisdictional grounds even if legal error occurred in the underlying order.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligencePetitioner/defendant Harte was sued in a five-count complaint alleging construction defects in a condominium building. Petitioner moved for summary ju…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Jurisdictional Grounds cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
This is a petition for common law certiorari. We deny the petition on jurisdictional grounds. Petitioner/defendant was sued in a five-count complaint alleging construction defects in a condominium building. Petitioner moved for summary judgment on Count V only. The motion for summary judgment was based on the recent case of Olympian West Condominium Association, Inc. v. Kramer, 427 So. 2d 1039 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983). The trial court denied the motion for summary judgment, and petitioner seeks review of this order by certiorari.
Even if petitioner is correct in contending that error occurred, there is an obvious adequate remedy by appeal if judgment is eventually entered against him on Count V. As this court has repeatedly held, under such circumstances a petitioner must demonstrate both a departure from the essential requirements of law and lack of an adequate remedy by appeal after judgment. See Chalfonte Development Corporation v. Beaudoin, 370 So. 2d 58 (Fla. 4th DCA 1979), and Palm Beach Newspapers, Inc. v. Parker, 417 So. 2d 323 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982). The order in question is not a permitted interlocutory appeal and is not a proper matter for certiorari. See Combs v. State, 436 So. 2d 93 (Fla.1983). Therein, the Supreme Court stated:
A district court may refuse to grant a petition for common law certiorari even though there may have been a departure from the essential requirements of law.
Although the Combs decision relates to review of circuit court appellate decisions, the rationale is appropriate here. We will not review the denial of a defendant’s motion for summary judgment as to a single count absent a demonstration of both a departure from established law and the lack of an adequate remedy by appeal. As we have so often held, the necessity of proceeding with a trial is not a sufficient ground to invoke certiorari. If it were, then the denial of every motion to dismiss and the denial of every motion for summary judgment would automatically provoke immediate appellate review by every defendant. In almost every case, trial judges make preliminary rulings on matters of law in defining the issues presented by the parties. The overall structure of the appellate system in this state does not countenance piecemeal review as to each of those rulings. Absent a demonstration of the elements necessary for common law certiorari, we will presume the trial court to be correct in the preliminary stages of the litigation and defer ruling until such time as a final appealable judgment has been rendered in the matter. Obviously, the petitioner/defendant may not have judgment rendered against him on Count V, and an appeal on this issue may never be necessary. The fact that other counts remain pending as to this defendant also militates against consideration of the matter at this time. The only authority cited by petitioner in support of this court’s jurisdiction is Keehn v. Mackey, 420 So. 2d 398 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982). This case is no comfort to petitioner. Keehn specifically held that in a situation where this court denies common law certiorari, it is precluded from ruling on the merits. We caution that our present denial of certiorari does not constitute any indication whatsoever as to how we would dispose of the matter if it is ever presented on appeal from judgment.
Certiorari is thus denied on jurisdictional grounds and the matter shall proceed below.
CERTIORARI DENIED.
BERANEK, HURLEY and DELL, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
State of Fla. Dep't OF Env't Prot. v. Garcia, 99 So. 3d 539 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989)…ew via certio-rari); Taggart v. Morgan, 943 So. 2d 250 (Fla. 3d DCA 2006) (stating rules of appellate procedure do not permit interlocutory appeals of non-final orders denying motions for summary judgment); Harte v. Palm Beach Biltmore Condo. Ass’n, 436 So. 2d 444, 445 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983) (holding that order denying motion for summary judgment was “not a permitted interlocutory appeal [and was] not a proper matter for certiorari”; “the necessity of proceeding with a trial is not a sufficient ground to invoke…
-
Tucker v. Resha, 610 So. 2d 460 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992)…al injury to Petitioner throughout the subsequent proceedings below, and 2) a full and adequate remedy by appeal after final judgment is unavailable. See Brooks v. Owens, 97 So. 2d 693, 695 (Fla.1957); Harte v. Palm Beach Biltmore Condominium Ass’n, 436 So. 2d 444, 445 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983); Boucher v. Pure Oil Co., 101 So. 2d 408, 410 (Fla. 1st DCA 1957). As a former public official, Tucker also asserted a substantive federal right not to stand trial, a right established by the United States Supreme Court in M…
-
Miami-Dade Cnty. v. Adolfo Perez, 988 So. 2d 40 (Fla. 3d DCA 2008)…e of Appellate Procedure 9.130(a)(3). Further, such orders do not meet our criteria for review via certiorari. See Baptist Hosp. of Miami, Inc. v. Demario, 682 So. 2d 1106 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996); see also Harte v. Palm Beach Biltmore Condo. Ass’n, Inc., 436 So. 2d 444 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983). We disagree with the County’s position that the order denying summary judgment is either: (1) an order determining “the right to immediate possession of property” under Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.130(a)(3)(C)(ii); or…
Previewing 3 of 8 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Combs v. State, 436 So. 2d 93 (Fla. 1983)
- Edwards v. Lawyers Title Guar. Fund, 370 So. 2d 58 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979)
- Wenk v. Tsiotis, 370 So. 2d 58 (Fla. 4th DCA 1979)
- Keehn v. Joseph C. MacKey & Co., 420 So. 2d 398 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982)
- Olympian W. Condo. Ass'n, Inc. v. Kramer, 427 So. 2d 1039 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983)
- Hatcher v. Miller, 427 So. 2d 1039 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983)
- Palm Beach Newspapers, Inc. v. Parker, 417 So. 2d 323 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982)